Third Party Press

42ASW Minty condition

joryfreeburg

Senior Member
Here is an 42ASW that I picked up at SOS this year. It’s in minty condition and seems like it was hardly ever used…. It came without a frog, but I had a high condition 1941 dated frog that I slid it into. I think the combo looks appropriate. Interesting that one for the grips seems to have ink in the wood handle?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4996.jpeg
    IMG_4996.jpeg
    274.1 KB · Views: 46
  • IMG_4999.jpeg
    IMG_4999.jpeg
    215.2 KB · Views: 45
  • IMG_4998.jpeg
    IMG_4998.jpeg
    271.9 KB · Views: 42
  • IMG_4997.jpeg
    IMG_4997.jpeg
    215.8 KB · Views: 38
  • IMG_5001.jpeg
    IMG_5001.jpeg
    272.6 KB · Views: 38
  • IMG_5002.jpeg
    IMG_5002.jpeg
    275.1 KB · Views: 38
  • IMG_5003.jpeg
    IMG_5003.jpeg
    222.8 KB · Views: 43
  • IMG_5004.jpeg
    IMG_5004.jpeg
    208.9 KB · Views: 46
  • IMG_5005.jpeg
    IMG_5005.jpeg
    186 KB · Views: 44
  • IMG_5006.jpeg
    IMG_5006.jpeg
    203 KB · Views: 38
  • IMG_5009.jpeg
    IMG_5009.jpeg
    192.3 KB · Views: 30
  • IMG_5008.jpeg
    IMG_5008.jpeg
    188.9 KB · Views: 28
  • IMG_5007.jpeg
    IMG_5007.jpeg
    206 KB · Views: 27
  • IMG_5010.jpeg
    IMG_5010.jpeg
    250 KB · Views: 31
  • IMG_5011.jpeg
    IMG_5011.jpeg
    213.6 KB · Views: 40
Last edited:
Great bayonet! Hard to upgrade the condition of this example. The grip is interesting. Not sure I have ever seen this before.

Have concerns regarding the frog however. The marking is incorrect and the construction and appearance are those of an artificially aged reproduction. My thoughts only ....
 
Great bayonet! Hard to upgrade the condition of this example. The grip is interesting. Not sure I have ever seen this before.

Have concerns regarding the frog however. The marking is incorrect and the construction and appearance are those of an artificially aged reproduction. My thoughts only ....
Thanks Slash…. I will attach a few more photos of the frog and see what everyone thinks. I may have been fooled on the frog….If want to see a certain photo, please ask
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5022.jpeg
    IMG_5022.jpeg
    114.9 KB · Views: 11
  • IMG_5021.jpeg
    IMG_5021.jpeg
    164.7 KB · Views: 11
  • IMG_5020.jpeg
    IMG_5020.jpeg
    162.4 KB · Views: 12
  • IMG_5017.jpeg
    IMG_5017.jpeg
    176.7 KB · Views: 13
  • IMG_5018.jpeg
    IMG_5018.jpeg
    159.2 KB · Views: 13
  • IMG_5019.jpeg
    IMG_5019.jpeg
    101.9 KB · Views: 11
  • IMG_5016.jpeg
    IMG_5016.jpeg
    178.4 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:
Thanks for the additional images. If you can remove the frog without damage the hanging hole is one of the areas that I always focus on. I have never encountered this three line marking on any original leather goods of this period by this maker. Have seen this identical marking on flare gun holsters that I feel are reproductions. The marking style and thick font are often encountered on these recent reproductions. Same with the impressed edge lines on the frog loop. A feature only rarely encountered on original period examples. Smell is also important as the modern pieces will frequently have a strong "fresh" leather an/or dye odor. My thoughts only .....
 
Thanks for the additional images. If you can remove the frog without damage the hanging hole is one of the areas that I always focus on. I have never encountered this three line marking on any original leather goods of this period by this maker. Have seen this identical marking on flare gun holsters that I feel are reproductions. The marking style and thick font are often encountered on these recent reproductions. Same with the impressed edge lines on the frog loop. A feature only rarely encountered on original period examples. Smell is also important as the modern pieces will frequently have a strong "fresh" leather an/or dye odor. My thoughts only .....
Here are some more of the frog with it removed. Please ask if I didn’t get photoed what you wanted…. I am now curious if I have an aged fake or wartime production frog. I believe that I picked this frog up on eBay for around $60 if I recall right. It dose not have a strong leather smell to it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a repro….
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5034.jpeg
    IMG_5034.jpeg
    258.2 KB · Views: 15
  • IMG_5033.jpeg
    IMG_5033.jpeg
    258.2 KB · Views: 15
  • IMG_5032.jpeg
    IMG_5032.jpeg
    180.4 KB · Views: 12
  • IMG_5031.jpeg
    IMG_5031.jpeg
    217.8 KB · Views: 15
  • IMG_5030.jpeg
    IMG_5030.jpeg
    241.5 KB · Views: 13
  • IMG_5029.jpeg
    IMG_5029.jpeg
    254.3 KB · Views: 13
  • IMG_5028.jpeg
    IMG_5028.jpeg
    235.6 KB · Views: 12
  • IMG_5027.jpeg
    IMG_5027.jpeg
    264 KB · Views: 11
  • IMG_5026.jpeg
    IMG_5026.jpeg
    147 KB · Views: 14
Good pics and thanks. Would not be for my collection; not an original example in my opinion .......
 
That is a top tier S84/98 III. Beautiful 42ASW. The black line on the grip looks to be only surface deep. I see what appears to be a tiny, tiny crack in the grip where it meets the cross guard (IMG 5004 and 5025) and thought the black (whatever it is) was filling it, but not so. Maybe when they put the grip screw in, it had machine oil on it and the oil ran out, staining the wood? Heck, I wouldn`t worry about it though, it certainly does nothing to detract from the condition. Too bad about the frog. Thanks goes to Slash for his expertise.
 
42asw its a nice untouched piece,probably never woried on belt, or in a frog, the LW frog looks never used too, but the thickness of leather looks suspicious to me, similar what Slash mentioned, i dont like the rivet heads same as the marking is little strange. I would proof a UV light on the stitching.
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top